Thanks Jeff, for putting the statistics out there for all to see. Yes, the wealthy do , already, pay the majority of the income taxes. This is the system created under President Bush, and it has made the tax code MORE progressive. The fact that it is done with lower tax rates is just a concept the left willfully ignores, because the lure of using the lower rate as a political argument is just too tempting. But the facts shown here by Jeff prove the fallacy of the Obama argument, and reveal that it is a POLITICAL argument, not an economic argument. I think Jeff is right, the American people are too smart to buy into it.

Jeff the left throws out "fair share" but never defines it

just a diversion, President Obama's campaign is certainly good at one thing, demonizing the opponent. Check with the people that ran against him in chicago.I read the Justice Dept is going after Adelson, he donated to the republican super pac, that's how they play, fear.

Who guaranteed that the top earners should only pay 20-something percent or sub 15% if based on capital gains. If you take an historical look at the data you'd see (and I know you already know this Mr. Jacoby) that during the most prosperous times in our country, the wealthy were taxed at upwards of 70%, even 90%. So stop complaining. The wealthy aren't entitled -- now there's a word I know you loathe --to especially low rates... and they never were. And it's interesting that despite the rates you mentioned it hasn't affected their wealth one bit. In fact in spite of these onerous levels they've never been wealthier. In fact while they get richer the economy gets poorer and inequality -- despite what you opine about it --accelerates the decline of our GDP and increases our debt.

Bumpyt: It is true that the marginal tax rates have been much higher than they are today. But it is false to suggest that many people ever paid those rates. There have been hundreds of tax shelter used over the years to avoid declaring income that reached those top rates. I do not have the stats at my disposal, but would bet that while tax rates of 90% were on the books, the actual percentage of income paid in those times were much closer to what is paid today by the wealthy-11-23%. The question ought not be what is the top marginal rate. It should be, what tax rate system maximizes growth and tax revenue. By that standard, the lower rates with fewer loopholes wins hands down.

Good idea Jeff, let's tax wealth. Divide the deficit and the budget for next year by the total wealth (on shore and off shore) of all US Citizens and the send out a tax bill proportionate to their share What could be fairer?

Jeff's homily today is a case study in spinning words and numbers to incite irrational emotions and mistaken conclusions about a very complicated topic. It's worth a good two day seminar to fully deconstruct the techniques at play. One level of problem is in use of specific words, such as "blasting the wealthy". Another level is that of false conclusions, such as "the occupy movement would be riding high". And yet another type of manipulation can be seen in the slicing up of statistics around taxes, and who pays what. If you, Jeff, really can stand behind this column as an honest attempt to contribute to the conversation around these issues, you have more troubles than I ever imagined. If the editors are willing to support you on this type of column, the Globe has apparently thrown in the towel. Perhaps it is time for the print media to fully admit that there is no interest in clear-headed objectivity. There are other societies which have turned over control of the media to extremists. The Globe teeters towards that with this type of screed.

Must have been a busy week in Jacobyville - he had to resort to republishing a GOP press release drafted by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. Back in reality, let's talk about what's fair. As Katrina vanden Heuvel of the Washington Post has pointed out about the Ryan plan that Romney supports, "It's a plan that says that increases in defense spending are so essential, that massive tax cuts for the wealthy are so necessary, that we must pay for them by ripping a hole in the social safety net. The poor need Medicaid to pay for medicine and treatment for their families? We care, we really do, but the wealthy need tax cuts more. Food stamps the only thing standing between your children and starvation? Listen, we feel your pain. We get it. But we've got more important things to spend money on." [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-are-causing-a-moral-crisis-in-america/2012/03/26/gIQACSM2dS_story.html ]

Another very disappointing column from Mr. Jacoby.

And let's debunk a Richmond12 favorite; namely, that tax cuts stimulate growth. Tax cuts do not stimulate growth, as conservative writer Bruce Bartlett has shown: "During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth. ¶This was the primary justification for a big tax cut. Subsequently, as it became clear that the economy was slowing – a recession began in March 2001 – that became a further justification. ¶The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001. ¶According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion." [ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/ ]

If the rich paid 100% of their income in taxes it still would not make a dent in the federal debt. France's Socialist government wants to tax their rich 75% and the rich are looking to move out of France. The same applies there...that 75% won't make a dent in France's debt either. Can't wait to see what happens if that 75% confiscation goes through.

This is the same tired use of false equivalency that conservatives and the wealthy class have been promulgating for years. Mr. Jacoby conveniently omitted the fat that top earners control more of the wealth in this country than ever. So, when considering that, we have to apply it to our current progressive tax rate. By doing so, it stands to reason that the wealthy pay more -- in terms of a percentage of income -- in taxes. In fact with tax rates for everyone at historical lows, the top earners, despite the overwhelming percentage of wealth that they now earn, have never paid lower tax rates. In fact if you are using "fair share" as the foundation point for the tax debate than the top earner's "fair share" tax rates should be commensurate to that income growth, not less. Conclusively, based on their earnings, they should pay a higher rate. You earn more. You pay more. You earn less. You pay less. It's simple. I can't imagine that anyone in the upper earning categories will be "dis-incentivized" to earn less money because more of it has to be paid in taxes.

The American people bailed out elites after the 2008 Republican economic crash, so now it's time for elites to step up and help pay down the debt their policies caused. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz notes, "But equally important is a reduction in after-tax income inequality. An easy place to start is with taxation itself—the current system taxes capital gains, which can be profits from speculation, at a much lower rate than salaries and wages. Not only is there no good reason for that, such tax policies distort the economy and increase instability. The wealthy should not be paying a smaller proportion of their incomes in taxes than the middle class. This worsens inequality, further distorts our politics, and makes it harder to restore the country's fiscal health. The increased revenues could, furthermore, help finance the needed public investments in infrastructure, education, and research that will get our economy back on track—and, if well designed, would also increase both equality and equality of opportunity." [ http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/06/joseph-stiglitz-innovation-fallacy-reagan ]

So what do you suppose would have happened if those tax cuts had not gone through? Somehow the economy would have recovered and we would be better off today? Utter nonsense! And for every trillion of debt increased under Bush, Obama increased it by 3 trillion...3:1. Without the tax cuts it might have been 4:1.

Of course, you include the 49% of Americans who pay no taxes, right? They also get their fair share of the bill? So what's a fair share? To be really fair every one should get exactly the same share of the bill.

The Bush tax cuts are sustaining the deficits, which allows clowns like you to blame Obama for Bush's failed policies. That's the real hogwash.

Jeff, get a clue. The only people who think the rich pay their fair share of taxes are the rich. Your problem seems to be less with the rates than eith the fact that income tax is progressive. Guess what? It has been for 70 years. And tax rates on the rich are currently lower than in the 1960 s, when we had very little debt. What is your worry? That Ann Romney can only afford to send one horse to the dressage competition at the next olympics? Get real.

Really? Seriously, Jacoby?? Until the wealthy and superwealthy begin to proportionately pay their fair share of taxes, it is not equitable. And that's all most Americans want to see. They want to see the wealthy pay their FAIR share. I am sickened and disgusted by the way the wealthiest American's slither through loopholes in the tax laws, park their money offshore where it's not subject to US tax laws, and then use their influence with decision-makers to create even more scenarios where they can hold to even more. Yes, I know that even if they do pay a proportionately greater percentage of their income it's not going to appreciably reduce our deficit or our national debt. It's not about that. It's about being fair, and not letting others who are less able to shoulder a burden that isn't theirs. The wealthy don't need that kind of welfare.

It's an apples and oranges morning for Mr. Jacoby. The President is raising taxes on the top 3% not 20% as this columnist proposes. Also there are other considerations. This is taxable income not gross income. The extra tax comes after deductions and credits are applied. Without doubt it is the upper income levels that have the advantage there. Also it is a matter of absolute amount not percentage that makes the situation clear. If you make $50000 taxable income and have an 11% rate that is $5500 leaving $44,500 or so in disposable income to pay rent, buy food, and buy some clothes, and transport oneself. Contrast this with the taxable $250,000 dollar household at the 23.2% level of $58,000 in tax but leaving $192,000 at least 4 times the amount of a family at the lower level. In real terms the added tax being proposed is on marginal income that is above $250,000 for this 3% of households. So someone making $300,000 taxable income this is a 4% extra tax on $50,000 or $2000 meaning they are left with $190,000. This is hardly soaking anybody. If Mr. Jacoby feels having $190,000 is a tough road to hoe then he should realize the desperate status of those who earn lower than $50,000. So here's the rub for the right wing. Either raise the income and hire more by using that over trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines or government has to step in to alleviate this unnecessary suffering of its working people who are the key to prosperity in this country.

Imagine what the conversation must be like when Scotty Taxes and Jacoby run into each other in the mens room.

Pity the poor, put-upon plutocrats. That argument didn't work so well for Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, nor for the Romanovs, but this time it could be different.

Of course the voters who were polled ranked higher taxes for the wealthy as the lowest priority--the question was asked in a vaccuum, as if it were an issue in and of itself. If someone just asks me, "do you think taxes should be raised for the wealthy?" of course I am going to say no--why would I care if the wealthy pay more in taxes? However, if someone asked me, "taxes must be raised: should they be raised for the wealthy, or for the middle class?" yeah, I'm gonna answer "the the wealthy!" Obviously when posed the question this way, most middle class Americans are going to answer the same way.

Wealthy and high income families are paying lower tax rates that they have in decades, and the economy is in worse shape than it's been in decades. The 1950s was a period of sustained economic growth that featured the highest tax rates on the wealthy that the country has ever seen. The most recent economic boom ended right about the time that George W Bush decided that tax cuts for the wealthy was sound economic policy. In other words, the top 1% to 5% percent paying more in taxes helps EVERYBODY, but when they pay lower taxes it helps only them, and I think it's pretty obvious that they don't really need that help.

Martdec...49% pay NO taxes? Are you sure NO taxes? NO sales tax? NO excise tax? NO tax?

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with his preposterous accusation that Mitt Romney "has not paid taxes for 10 years,"" How do you know it is preposterous? Have you seen Mr. Romney's tax returns? Otherwise, you cannot make that statement.